The last bit of news on the "uncertainty" factor that I heard that contained actual interviews with business owners said that it really is uncertainty that's keeping them from hiring. But not the uncertainty that the Rs are going on about. It's uncertainty over whether customers will actually come in the door. So they aren't hiring. Which, of course, means that people don't have jobs, so they don't buy stuff. It's all sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy from a certain perspective. No one is buying stuff because they can't get jobs because no one is hiring because no one is buying stuff.

That is regular uncertainty for most business when thinking about hiring without a demand to justify hiring.

The solution there is to hire commission based salesmen.

Sales positions are a small minority of all positions. Do we get commission based busboys and grill cooks also? Commission based roofers or landscapers? Commission based shelf stockers and warehouse workers?

The last bit of news on the "uncertainty" factor that I heard that contained actual interviews with business owners said that it really is uncertainty that's keeping them from hiring. But not the uncertainty that the Rs are going on about. It's uncertainty over whether customers will actually come in the door. So they aren't hiring. Which, of course, means that people don't have jobs, so they don't buy stuff. It's all sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy from a certain perspective. No one is buying stuff because they can't get jobs because no one is hiring because no one is buying stuff.

That is regular uncertainty for most business when thinking about hiring without a demand to justify hiring.

The solution there is to hire commission based salesmen.

Sales positions are a small minority of all positions. Do we get commission based busboys and grill cooks also? Commission based roofers or landscapers? Commission based shelf stockers and warehouse workers?

Do you seriously think the problem with demand in our economy is that businesses don't have enough people trying to sell stuff, or aren't trying hard enough to market their products?

e-

I mean, although I don't really think your suggestion is a very good one, at it's core you're saying if it's cheaper for businesses to hire people, employment will increase. Although I think there's a lot of other nasty things that could be said about your suggestion, there's some sense there. "More salesmen means more demand!" is a pretty weak supporting argument for it, though.

“I keep hearing that what is holding U.S. businesses back from expanding and hiring is “uncertainty.” Exactly what new types of uncertainty businesses face in the current environment vs. past environments is rarely spelled out. But if, in fact, businesses are paralyzed due to uncertainty, I would not expect them to be stepping up their purchases of capital equipment. After all, capital equipment has a relatively long life. If businesses were unusually uncertain about the long-term outlook, they would be more reluctant to make longer-term commitments, which the purchase of capital equipment is. Rather, if businesses were unusually uncertain about the future, they might be more inclined to hire workers, who, after all, can be dismissed on short notice if conditions were to change suddenly.

But just the opposite seems to be happening. Business hiring remains weak and business capital spending is robust. The capital spending part is illustrated in the chart below showing the 8-quarter annualized growth in shipments of nondefense capital goods deflated by the PPI for capital goods. In the 8 quarters of the current economic recovery/expansion, price-adjusted shipments of nondefense capital goods have increased at an annualized rate of 7.4%. In the prior economic expansion, when, presumably, there was normal or less-than-normal uncertainty, the fastest 8-quarter annualized growth in price-adjusted shipments of nondefense capital goods was 8.6% — in the 8 quarters ended Q1:2006. I would think that if abnormally-high business uncertainty prevailed today, there would have been considerably slower growth in price-adjusted purchases of nondefense capital goods than what has occurred.”

And I see it was Thantos last time too.

As a guy who has made a career out of designing, building, and installing major capital equipment projects, I can tell you that as a general rule, businesses shell out more capital in slow economic times. Downtime for upgrades can be accomodated, labor efficiencies are easier to justify, the whole pace of work is slower.

When the boontimes are happening, business focuses on making money, not upgrading or replacing equipment. The time to leverage assets is in a time of high productive activity; the time to upgrade, replace, or add new assets is in a time of low productive activity.

I'm working on millions of dollars of projects right now, and have been since 2006. Any machine builder can tell you this.

The economist quoted (whoever he is) needs to get some practical experience.

Do you seriously think the problem with demand in our economy is that businesses don't have enough people trying to sell stuff, or aren't trying hard enough to market their products?

e-

No. I was bringing up a specific situational solution, not a general solution. If that business wants to hire more, but there is no demand to justify it, you must create demand. Commission based salesmen are motivated to create demand.

Do you seriously think the problem with demand in our economy is that businesses don't have enough people trying to sell stuff, or aren't trying hard enough to market their products?

e-

No. I was bringing up a specific situational solution, not a general solution.

Sure, but let's work within that specificity. You've just said that the problem with demand isn't that we don't have salesmen or aren't selling stuff aggressively enough. How does it follow, then, that:

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Of course, producers don't have any incentive to produce anything if nobody has the money to buy it. Printing money doesn't produce something directly, but it can cause something to be produced. That's not "the great trap of Keynesian Economics", that's just a feel-good soundbite that doesn't actually engage with or debunk Keynesian economics in any way. If you want to argue that liquidity traps aren't real, have at it, but your criticism here is insubstantial.

And how does printing money "consume the seeds of economic recovery," exactly?

If that business wants to hire more, but there is no demand to justify it, you must create demand. Commission based salesmen are motivated to create demand.

Doesn't it follow, then, that some of our problem with demand is due to not having enough salesmen or not selling aggressively enough?

From the Big Picture view? It could be construed that way. From the individual company viewpoint? So long as they are cash positive and not getting buried due to long term commitments, there is no need to expand.

As I previously mentioned and sourced, employee expansion is risky. There needs to be damn good justification for it. Companies are currently treating their reserves as scared money WRT employee hiring.

So, then, all you're doing is tautologically asserting that businesses that need a bigger salesforce could benefit from hiring more salesmen, and adding that if they're scared about the expense of having those salesmen they could pay them less but use a comission to make the job more attractive and motivate thier workers more?

Well, I can't really disagree with that but that's a pretty trivial assertion that's also so narrow in scope as to be irrelevant to economy/unemployment discussion that you were replying to when you said it.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Of course, producers don't have any incentive to produce anything if nobody has the money to buy it. Printing money doesn't produce something directly, but it can cause something to be produced. That's not "the great trap of Keynesian Economics", that's just a feel-good soundbite that doesn't actually engage with or debunk Keynesian economics in any way. If you want to argue that liquidity traps aren't real, have at it, but your criticism here is insubstantial.

And how does printing money "consume the seeds of economic recovery," exactly?

Printing money devalues the power of the existing capital.

Production always gives an economic benefit. It primes the pump. If I give you a dollar and you buy a lead-painted doll from China, I've not only removed that dollar from being used productively, I've removed your ability to consume my product.

So, then, all you're doing is tautologically asserting that businesses that need a bigger salesforce could benefit from hiring more salesmen, and adding that if they're scared about the expense of having those salesmen they could pay them less but use a comission to make the job more attractive and motivate thier workers more?

Well, I can't really disagree with that but that's a pretty trivial assertion that's also so narrow in scope as to be irrelevant to economy/unemployment discussion that you were replying to when you said it.

e- I can has grammar.

No. I asserted that businesses that want higher demand can choose to invest in salesmen. There is no reason to invest in any other new human resources until that demand occurs. Everyone already has agreed that companies are profitable, have cash, and aren't hiring. There is no "need" for changing anything on the HR outlook. Hence money is used on infrastructure.

Which has quite a bit to do to the silllyness portrayed in this thread regarding business economics and what people who have never run a business think they should do.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Question: What serves as the motivator for a person to convert resources to assets and create value?

Answer: It's because a marketplace exists with consumers to purchase those assets.

And now, a Public Service Announcement:4 out of 5 Republicans don't understand the most basic of economics. It's this lack of understanding that causes voters to support people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, or even Rick Perry. With your assistance we can work to educate people, one at a time, and prevent disaster in 2012. Won't you help?

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Of course, producers don't have any incentive to produce anything if nobody has the money to buy it. Printing money doesn't produce something directly, but it can cause something to be produced. That's not "the great trap of Keynesian Economics", that's just a feel-good soundbite that doesn't actually engage with or debunk Keynesian economics in any way. If you want to argue that liquidity traps aren't real, have at it, but your criticism here is insubstantial.

And how does printing money "consume the seeds of economic recovery," exactly?

Printing money devalues the power of the existing capital.

Production always gives an economic benefit. It primes the pump.

What you've described, probably without realizing it, is Stalinist economic policy: To produce, without regard to the market of consumers. This is why the USSR had too many toasters and not enough toilet paper.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Of course, producers don't have any incentive to produce anything if nobody has the money to buy it. Printing money doesn't produce something directly, but it can cause something to be produced. That's not "the great trap of Keynesian Economics", that's just a feel-good soundbite that doesn't actually engage with or debunk Keynesian economics in any way. If you want to argue that liquidity traps aren't real, have at it, but your criticism here is insubstantial.

And how does printing money "consume the seeds of economic recovery," exactly?

Printing money devalues the power of the existing capital.

Production always gives an economic benefit. It primes the pump.

What you've described, probably without realizing it, is Stalinist economic policy: To produce, without regard to the market of consumers. This is why the USSR had too many toasters and not enough toilet paper.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

Of course, producers don't have any incentive to produce anything if nobody has the money to buy it. Printing money doesn't produce something directly, but it can cause something to be produced. That's not "the great trap of Keynesian Economics", that's just a feel-good soundbite that doesn't actually engage with or debunk Keynesian economics in any way. If you want to argue that liquidity traps aren't real, have at it, but your criticism here is insubstantial.

And how does printing money "consume the seeds of economic recovery," exactly?

Printing money devalues the power of the existing capital.

Production always gives an economic benefit. It primes the pump.

What you've described, probably without realizing it, is Stalinist economic policy: To produce, without regard to the market of consumers. This is why the USSR had too many toasters and not enough toilet paper.

And no entrepreneur to sell the Russians surplus toilet paper.

Exactly! But that was because the economic model of the USSR did not allow for entrepreneurs. We do, therefore the producers will follow the consumers. Unless the producer is Apple.

We've been conditioned to think that consumption grows an economy. It doesn't. Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity. Simply giving money away -taxed, borrowed, or printed- doesn't create anything. It just consumes the seeds of economic recovery. It's the great trap of Keynesian Economics.

What you described ("Production grows an economy. Capital assets are converted into other assets, generating economic activity") sounds pretty much like Keynesian Economics (or at least how I understand it), with government funding production.

May have to turn this one into a Semi-Perpetual because we have another debate tonight. Word this is one is going to be filled with lots of fights over social security. With Perry in the lead, and taking such a hard line on Social Security everyone is going to be trying to score some points.

Despite calling SS a "Fraud" last year Bachmann is supposed to attack Perry on it.

He says it isn’t an endorsement, but radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh warned Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s competitors that he will go to bat for Perry if they choose to attack him over his claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.”

During his Monday show, Limbaugh warned the 2012 Republican field not to use Perry’s remarks against him. He specifically named Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

I don't think so. There was actually a notable chill for a moment, IMO. But then Paul quickly re-phrased his position in terms of "freedom" and letting people live the consequences of their choices, and that is what people cheered, SFAICT.

I don't think so. There was actually a notable chill for a moment, IMO. But then Paul quickly re-phrased his position in terms of "freedom" and letting people live the consequences of their choices, and that is what people cheered, SFAICT.

pretty much the same thing. letting people die for getting hit by cars and not having insurance...

pretty much the same thing. letting people die for getting hit by cars and not having insurance...

Consequentially and in the context of that question, yes. And that highlights the rhetorically slick duplicity within Ron Paul's answer: without changing his position on the facts, he re-phrased his position from an appearance of heartlessness to an appearance of standing for "freedom".

Nonetheless I was just trying to answer Jables's question about what people were cheering for. They cheered for "freedom", not "letting people die". Yes, they cheered for a position which amounts to the same thing. The point though is that, while we can indict them for being blindly ideological to the point of a needless callousness, it's too swift and judgmental IMO to conclude that they are so for "letting people die" that they cheer it on. The truth I think is that they have an overly simplistic, ideological position on health insurance.

Summarizing my answer: The Tea Party needs to vote for people like me who know better than them what to do.

I still say Romney won, if only for standing up to Perry so handily, over and over. First with 'We are having that discussion, we're running for president' and later for 'here's what I actually said, don't misquote me'. (Mine are not actual verbatim quotes.)

The point though is that, while we can indict them for being blindly ideological to the point of a needless callousness, it's too swift and judgmental IMO to conclude that they are so for "letting people die" that they cheer it on.

I don't know, last debate they were cheering for killing people when the number of Texas executions was raised.

I'm not watching the debate, mind you. I'm just pointing out that it's not at all outlandish to wonder if they're cheering for letting people die.

I'm not watching the debate, mind you. I'm just pointing out that it's not at all outlandish to wonder if they're cheering for letting people die.

You're right about the TX execution thing and I hear you but let's be clear: I didn't accuse Jables of asking an outlandish question; I just tried to answer it straight up. The Tea Partiers in general and the ones cheering the "freedom" to die due to lack of insurance can be indicted for many things. As one who doesn't hesitate to do so, I do like to keep things honest and not get lazy about it.

I favor Euthansia and I could imagine a debate circumstance where a spirited defense of that position would get my applause. But there are no such circumstances which could get fairly reported as "Qt cheers on the killing of old people".

Here's a HuffPo link to the relevant vid for the exchange about letting un-insured person die.

People can judge for themselves. To be noted, as the point was pressed from Blitzer, and after Paul framed it as the freedom to choose not to be insured and the freedom to live and die with the consequences of one's choices, some audience members shouted out "Let him die!".

Also to be noted, Blitzer framed it from the outset as a situation where the person chose not to buy health insurance, and not as a situation about someone who couldn't afford insurance.

Here's a HuffPo link to the relevant vid for the exchange about letting un-insured person die.

People can judge for themselves. To be noted, as the point was pressed from Blitzer, and after Paul framed it as the freedom to choose not to be insured and the freedom to live and die with the consequences of one's choices, some audience members shouted out "Let him die!".

Also to be noted, Blitzer framed it from the outset as a situation where the person chose not to buy health insurance, and not as a situation about someone who couldn't afford insurance.

The problem there is that the same answer's going to apply to the guy too poor to buy insurance, because Paul framed the entire issue as a series of choices and consequences. So the guy who loses his job, and thus his health care, in the post Obamacare world, is responsible for the fix he's in, because he didn't choose to go into a better career. About the only way to pose that question so as to force him to speak on when, if ever, the gov't should intervene would've been to ask 'if a man loses his job because the industry ships it overseas, for the tax break you supported time after time, and thus cannot afford healthcare, and his kid gets scarlet fever, should the government step in, and pay for that child's health care, or the father's inability to cover the bills simply a consequence of his choice to work in a career that was later eliminated, and the child is simply collateral damage?" Anything short of that won't illuminate the extent of when, if ever, government should get involved.